Pages

Saturday, 15 September 2012

The lazy journalist will cite Psycho1960 as a horror film. His
inept colleague will describe it as ‘the first slasher’1. Psycho is
not a horror film. It can be touted as a psychological thriller à la The
Silence of the Lambs1991 but
it is best described as a psychological drama à la Blue Velvet1985. The best definition
for the movie is ‘an Alfred Hitchcock film’2
however the best subtitle for the movie is ‘the harbinger of modern horror’.

2 Hitchcock directed 54 features3. That qualifies as a subgenre. So too do the
respective films of Spike Lee, Martin Scorcese and Oliver Stone, amongst
others. This can be called the ‘auteur clause’.

Modern horror began with George A Romero’s Night
of the Living Dead 1968. It
was the first film to place horror in a contemporary setting and have an impact
at the box office[4][5]. It put an
end to the prevalence of gothic and inspired the horror bastards6 of the 70s. Those horror bastards were soon to
become horror meisters.

Meisters at work: John Carpenter and Wes Craven

5 There were contemporary-set horror films before Night of the Living Dead
– such as Village of the Damned 1960. None of them had the immediate cultural
significance the former had. Ironically Village
of the Damned was remade by
John Carpenter in 1995.

6 Thrill Fiction uses the term ‘bastards’ as an affectionate
counter to the celebrated movie brats7 who were nascent at the same time. Whereas a brat
is tolerable and ultimately controllable a bastard is shameful and lives in the
ghetto with his whore mother. Horror remains the bastard child of Hollywood. It
lives in the ghettos of DVD and VOD.

Psycho inspired
the horror meisters with its plot, suspense, thrills and reveal (as well as
themes and imagery). Its influence can be seen in Tobe Hooper’s The
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1974; the deserted, gothic,
haunted house inhabited by a lunatic family. Wes Craven used this motif in The
Hills Have Eyes 1977. He
would later revive the Janet Leigh prototype in Scream1996. John Carpenter
stripped Psycho of
its story and exacerbated its plot;
he took the Psycho paradigm
and created the Halloween1978 template. To cement
the connection between the two films he cast Janet Leigh’s daughter. Psycho had
a knife wielding killer, it enhanced the woman-in-peril, it hinted at the ‘final
girl’. Halloween
perfected these tropes. It is the first slasher film. Psycho is
its progenitor.

This is where the misconception arose. The
horror meisters worship Psycho in interviews1. They talk of its significance and cite it as
a horror film.As well they should as
this is how they see it but it is the lazy and inept journalist who then takes
that citation and repeats it as fact. Prior to the 1970s no one described Psycho as
a horror film[8][9].

The Psycho inspired
Halloween
template remains the horror standard 35 years later. That standard was
challenged byLa Casa Muda2011. If Psycho was
flesh and Halloween
bone then La
Casa Muda is bone with its marrow eviscerated. What
remains is an empty shell; a concept – and 86 minutes of filler.

In order to market this naked emperor the
filmmakers employed gimmick. The Blair Witch Project 1999 gimmicked the
audience. La
Casa Muda gimmicked the festivals and it worked. The
American remake Silent House 2012 wrapped
before the original Uruguayan film was released Stateside.

The American production hired a husband and
wife already versed in torpor. Writer Laura Lau and director Chris Kentis made Open
Water 2003, a
film with a concept with no story to tell. So it is with Silent
House. Nothing was lost in translation because nothing was said
in Spanish. The attempt to pad this non-event with narrative is akin to a
toddler with a colouring book.

The American filmmakers didn’t have the
gimmicks of the original. What they had was the rising starlet Elizabeth Olsen.
This is an interesting personality to become a movie star. In America she has
famous twin sisters. The press have long boasted about the twins being
billionaires10 which inadvertently
questions the credibility of younger sibling Elizabeth.

The average income of an actor in the UK is £6k-£60k11. Needless to say it is bottom heavy. Most
actors struggle to earn a living. It is the same in America. In Los Angeles
they famously wait on tables. Elizabeth Olsen comes from money. She is taking
the spot of a working class kid who needs the gig. She is taking the spot of a Fairuza
Balk, Demi Moore or a Sarah Michelle Gellar and she’s doing it in the indies;
the job centre of the starving actor. Olsen is being primed for stardom because
lazy journalists are bewitched by her last name and physical resemblance to her
sitcom star sisters. If Olsen wants to be an actor she should fund her own
movies. Her typical insipid performance in this one is reminiscent of Bridget –
not Jane – Fonda.

Hollywood royalty: Elizabeth Olsen

Silent House was
not made to entertain. It was made to exploit on the back of La Casa
Muda. The former has a reputed production budget12 of $1million and it took $13m13 in its theatrical run. Internet scams target
the proletariat. Bernie Madoff targeted the rich. Silent House
targeted the art house and Elizabeth Olsen was the Trojan horse. This is what Psycho
looks like in the hands of the inept. The lazy journalist will cite Silent
House as a horror film. It is so far removed from horror that
the best definition for the movie is ‘a film starring Elizabeth Olsen’■

The lazy journalist will cite Psycho1960 as a horror film. His
inept colleague will describe it as ‘the first slasher’1. Psycho is
not a horror film. It can be touted as a psychological thriller à la The
Silence of the Lambs1991 but
it is best described as a psychological drama à la Blue Velvet1985. The best definition
for the movie is ‘an Alfred Hitchcock film’2
however the best subtitle for the movie is ‘the harbinger of modern horror’.

2 Hitchcock directed 54 features3. That qualifies as a subgenre. So too do the
respective films of Spike Lee, Martin Scorcese and Oliver Stone, amongst
others. This can be called the ‘auteur clause’.

Modern horror began with George A Romero’s Night
of the Living Dead 1968. It
was the first film to place horror in a contemporary setting and have an impact
at the box office[4][5]. It put an
end to the prevalence of gothic and inspired the horror bastards6 of the 70s. Those horror bastards were soon to
become horror meisters.

Meisters at work: John Carpenter and Wes Craven

5 There were contemporary-set horror films before Night of the Living Dead
– such as Village of the Damned 1960. None of them had the immediate cultural
significance the former had. Ironically Village
of the Damned was remade by
John Carpenter in 1995.

6 Thrill Fiction uses the term ‘bastards’ as an affectionate
counter to the celebrated movie brats7 who were nascent at the same time. Whereas a brat
is tolerable and ultimately controllable a bastard is shameful and lives in the
ghetto with his whore mother. Horror remains the bastard child of Hollywood. It
lives in the ghettos of DVD and VOD.

Psycho inspired
the horror meisters with its plot, suspense, thrills and reveal (as well as
themes and imagery). Its influence can be seen in Tobe Hooper’s The
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1974; the deserted, gothic,
haunted house inhabited by a lunatic family. Wes Craven used this motif in The
Hills Have Eyes 1977. He
would later revive the Janet Leigh prototype in Scream1996. John Carpenter
stripped Psycho of
its story and exacerbated its plot;
he took the Psycho paradigm
and created the Halloween1978 template. To cement
the connection between the two films he cast Janet Leigh’s daughter. Psycho had
a knife wielding killer, it enhanced the woman-in-peril, it hinted at the ‘final
girl’. Halloween
perfected these tropes. It is the first slasher film. Psycho is
its progenitor.

This is where the misconception arose. The
horror meisters worship Psycho in interviews1. They talk of its significance and cite it as
a horror film.As well they should as
this is how they see it but it is the lazy and inept journalist who then takes
that citation and repeats it as fact. Prior to the 1970s no one described Psycho as
a horror film[8][9].

The Psycho inspired
Halloween
template remains the horror standard 35 years later. That standard was
challenged byLa Casa Muda2011. If Psycho was
flesh and Halloween
bone then La
Casa Muda is bone with its marrow eviscerated. What
remains is an empty shell; a concept – and 86 minutes of filler.

In order to market this naked emperor the
filmmakers employed gimmick. The Blair Witch Project 1999 gimmicked the
audience. La
Casa Muda gimmicked the festivals and it worked. The
American remake Silent House 2012 wrapped
before the original Uruguayan film was released Stateside.

The American production hired a husband and
wife already versed in torpor. Writer Laura Lau and director Chris Kentis made Open
Water 2003, a
film with a concept with no story to tell. So it is with Silent
House. Nothing was lost in translation because nothing was said
in Spanish. The attempt to pad this non-event with narrative is akin to a
toddler with a colouring book.

The American filmmakers didn’t have the
gimmicks of the original. What they had was the rising starlet Elizabeth Olsen.
This is an interesting personality to become a movie star. In America she has
famous twin sisters. The press have long boasted about the twins being
billionaires10 which inadvertently
questions the credibility of younger sibling Elizabeth.

The average income of an actor in the UK is £6k-£60k11. Needless to say it is bottom heavy. Most
actors struggle to earn a living. It is the same in America. In Los Angeles
they famously wait on tables. Elizabeth Olsen comes from money. She is taking
the spot of a working class kid who needs the gig. She is taking the spot of a Fairuza
Balk, Demi Moore or a Sarah Michelle Gellar and she’s doing it in the indies;
the job centre of the starving actor. Olsen is being primed for stardom because
lazy journalists are bewitched by her last name and physical resemblance to her
sitcom star sisters. If Olsen wants to be an actor she should fund her own
movies. Her typical insipid performance in this one is reminiscent of Bridget –
not Jane – Fonda.

Hollywood royalty: Elizabeth Olsen

Silent House was
not made to entertain. It was made to exploit on the back of La Casa
Muda. The former has a reputed production budget12 of $1million and it took $13m13 in its theatrical run. Internet scams target
the proletariat. Bernie Madoff targeted the rich. Silent House
targeted the art house and Elizabeth Olsen was the Trojan horse. This is what Psycho
looks like in the hands of the inept. The lazy journalist will cite Silent
House as a horror film. It is so far removed from horror that
the best definition for the movie is ‘a film starring Elizabeth Olsen’■